Boundary Surveying

BLM admits potential Gradient Boundary error

Mon, 10 Apr 2017 17:16:51 GMT

This is an issue of unsurveyed lands, wherein title would be retained by the United States. This had set the stage for a huge legal fight between the DOI and one Texas landowner, in particular. There were even some rumors of an effort to physically prevent the US taking on the scope and scale of the Bundy Ranch fiasco in NV. It essentially comes down to a question of whether or not the BLM properly applied the principles of accretion, erosion, etc. to the boundaries being surveyed. It was apparent to most outside of the BLM, and familiar with the case and BLM's procedures, that they had not. They had, on the face of things, simply followed the BLM procedures blindly without taking into consideration these long established principles of boundary determination. This should make an interesting case to follow, once determinations have been made on the validity of the boundaries established by these surveys.

Click here for a link to the full article

Original Buildings or Irons?

Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:41:32 GMT

Has anyone had experience with conflicts between original buildings in an old town/city square and the newer irons popping up on surrounding blocks? I have irons on two blocks that fit each other but would cause almost all the original buildings to encroach into the row. After locating the buildings they fit well with each other and the called row width and the only buildings that would encroach have obvious additions to the original footprints. But those buildings do not fit with the irons. The old plats (1902, 1903) do not call for any monuments and what exists is of all types and sizes. I'm assuming the buildings date to a time a lot closer to the plats than the irons do and there was a corresponding greater chance of finding original corners. With such a good fit on my buildings, no called for monuments, plat dimensions that have no relation to reality, and everything from irons to pipes to "X" cuts, I know that I would tend to hold the old buildings and avoid encroachments. How about the rest of you?

Title 21-1774

Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:23:10 GMT

§21‑1774. Removing or altering landmarks.Every person who either:

1. Maliciously removes any monuments of stone, wood, or other material, erected for the purpose of designating any point in the boundary of any lot or tract of land; or,

2. Maliciously defaces or alters the marks upon any tree, post or other monument, made for the purpose of designating any point, course, or line in any such boundary; or,

3. Maliciously cuts down or removes any tree upon which any such marks have been made for such purpose, with intent to destroy such marks; is guilty of a misdemeanor.[1] R.L.1910, § 2779.

This week I had a client remove two monuments that marked the northeast and southeast corners of his 9 acre parcel I recently did. He set "T" posts +/- 30' east of said monuments. The adjoiner asked me to check them. He contacted the Custer County Sheriff and informed them of this matter. "Long story short"; I reset said monuments with a Deputy escort yesterday. I provided the deputy with a copy of 21-1774 from the OSLS Manual of Practice. I confirmed on Oklahoma Legislature Website (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os21.rtf
that said Statute has not been repealed.

Here are my questions:

a) Am I right about the current status of the statute, and

b) What is the fine? A party chief at my office said it was $1000 per monument. However, the inscription on ODOT Monuments says $250.

What say you, OSLS comrades?

Boundary Surveying

BLM admits potential Gradient Boundary error

Original Buildings or Irons?

Title 21-1774

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6